It does seem that many people, especially non-Buddhists but also Buddhists too, talk about emptiness as a state of mind free from thought, perhaps because the word emptiness does seem to point to that experience [although of course shunyata does not mean that]. It does seem skillful for Rinpoche to accept that definition and use it.

From my understanding, thoughts are the display of awareness; and their nature is the same whether in a state of thoughts arising or in the state of stillness in the mind. We have to recognise this single identity of thoughts and awareness. Is this correct?

It does seem that many people, especially non-Buddhists but also Buddhists too, talk about emptiness as a state of mind free from thought, perhaps because the word emptiness does seem to point to that experience [although of course shunyata does not mean that]. It does seem skillful for Rinpoche to accept that definition and use it.

It does seem that many people, especially non-Buddhists but also Buddhists too, talk about emptiness as a state of mind free from thought, perhaps because the word emptiness does seem to point to that experience [although of course shunyata does not mean that]. It does seem skillful for Rinpoche to accept that definition and use it.

The experience of emptiness here is a Vajrayāna descrition.

Ah, I see. So what does Vajrayana call the insight into Pratītyasamutpāda?

Namdrol wrote:ChNN frequently says this actually, but he does not mean realization of emptiness free from extremes, he means an experience where the mind is empty of thought.

Like non-thought as in bliss, clarity and non-thought? He actually means something like non-conceptual?

/magnus

Yes.

It makes a great deal of sense in these terms, from the perspective of the Pali Suttas, particularly from the second jhaana/dhyaana. According to the Suttas, five factors enter into the first jhaana/dhyaana: vitakka/vitarka, "thought", applying the attention to the object; vicaara, reapplying the attention to the object, as it were; piiti/priiti, rapture/joy/bliss; sukha, happiness; and ekaggataa/ekaagrataa, one-pointedness.

Vitakka/vitarka and vicaara are terms which refer to the conceptual, though the conceptuality is so highly attenuated in the context of jhaana/dhyaana, on traditional accounts which follow Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga at least, as to be more naturally describable as non-conceptual or verging on it. In the second jhaana, vitakka/vitarka and vicaara cease, so even tenuous conceptuality ends, and only piiti/priiti and sukha (which are not distinct from one another at this stage, and which are technically vipaaka -- the result of past kamma/karma), together with ekaggataa/ekaagrataa, intensified by the bliss, remain. In the third jhaana/dhyaana, piiti/priiti falls away, and in the fourth jhaana, sukha also falls away, leaving upekkhaa/upek.shaa (equinimity) in its stead and ekaggataa/ekaagrataa. In the later mainstream account of jhaana/dhyaana given in the Visuddhimagga, and as jhaana/dhyaana is practised and taught by such Theravadin teachers as Pa Auk Sayadaw and Ajahn Brahmavamso, the mind is empty of thought, to all intents and purposes, even in the first jhaana/dhyaana. From the second jhaana/dhyaana upwards, the qualification "to all intents and purposes" is not needed: the mind is empty of thoughts, full-stop.

alpha wrote:what does it mean when there is a self aware space without boundary of and cannot be thought of being inside or outside and thoughts seem to arise from the middle of it ?

and the thoughts dont have much strength and seem to be somewhat similar to the space they arose from?

It's meaning would depend on whether one is asking from experience or from the perspective of a general inquiry, a teacher with skillful means may answer in different ways depending on the circumstances surrounding the question... And that's just because how one relates to such an experience can either be binding or liberating.